Pages

Thursday, October 4, 2012

The Number of Atheists in Philosophy Don't Bother Me, and it Shouldn't Bother You Either

Some time ago, a friend and I were out to breakfast with two atheists (who were good friends of my friend). These gentlemen were philosophy majors at the University of North Florida (known for heavily promoting naturalism). It was a great (and excitable) discussion. At some point, one of the atheists asked me, “Does it bother you that most philosophers are atheists?” Without hesitation, I responded, “No, not at all.” He quickly said, “Well it should.” For whatever reason, this made my friend and I laugh (not a scornful or mocking laugh; we just genuinely thought it was funny).

It’s probably true that the majority of philosophers are atheists. However, it also seems to be true that the majority of philosophers of religion are theists. That is to say, the people who are most likely to be experts in the area believe in God.

But never mind. Even if the situation were clearly that most philosophers of religion were strongly atheistic in their thinking, this would not bother me in the slightest. Why not?

There are certain things in life that are highly-infused with emotion. Politics, whether or not our children have ever committed any wrong toward anyone other than their own family, and religion sit squarely within this realm. This is not to say that no objectivity can be achieved in these areas. Rather, this is to say that religious beliefs are often infused with emotional baggage; this is so much so that one cannot simply deem God more likely not to exist than to exist. There are much stronger considerations and arguments that must be discussed. So what’s the point in bringing this up in a conversation about God?

Simply put, it is an appeal to authority combined with an appeal to popularity. It is designed to make the theist question whether God exists based on no more merit than a community’s say-so. It is fallacious because there are available arguments to be examined and yet they are all ignored in favor of a glorified hand-raising vote. Instead of being bothered by this and trying to substantiate that theists are the majority, or taking on a persecution complex (i.e., becoming a contrarian for its own sake), we ought rather to focus on the good Christian arguments at hand.

8 comments:

It's a chess of remarks, the criteria is already God-level, and reason is treated like an invisible cognitive friend. There wouldn't be so much atheism in intellectual circles if theists would face the music and do their homework on the arguments of philosophical atheism. The atheists don't do this either, but their bluff is several moves ahead of the theists.

Hello and thanks for commenting! I certainly agree some theists do not do much homework on atheistic arguments, and I'm glad you recognized it goes both ways. Atheist philosophers outside of philosophy of religion, however, seem hopelessly ignorant of current theistic arguments. It seems every encounter I have with a philosophy major about theism results in them quoting Hume and defeating Descartes' ontological argument. Most of them have no idea who Alvin Plantinga is. :) So, there's much work to be done on both sides. My only point is my faith in God is not shaken by the preponderance of atheists. :)

The problem is that the current state of the average believing mind IS being shaken by the preponderance of logical gaps in the proposed justifications of belief in God in relation to objections by Hume, Russell, Flew, Martin, and Nielsen. The youth attrition rate plus the lazy, shallow, and amateurish state of Christian apologetics do not bode well. 300 years and there's STILL no detailed analysis of a single one of Hume's works, for example. And if atheists bone up on just a few arguments from Nielsen and Martin, I predict a new overwhelming flood of abandonment of Christianity, and not just among youth. There's not going to BE a replacement generation in 10 years. Schlussel's coverage earlier this year of accelerating U.S. church closures is just the beginning of what will be big news in a few years. The real prophecy is being ignored: the rolling eyes of Christian youth. And until the reason for their view of church people and parents being clueless morons is faced and fixed, it's all over for organized Christiandom in this country.

I don't think the situation is as alarmist as you make it sound, particularly with the reason for young people leaving the church (that can be attributed to many things). Nor would I categorize Christian apologetics as being "amateurish." I think that's probably uncharitable. Many of us simply aren't convinced the objections of Hume were really any good!

Interesting that you brought up experts. Do you think a consensus of people who study a certain topic (are experts of the topic) should be the ones laymen should refer to in regards to their belief on the topic?

Hello Grundy. In general, I do think laymen should defer to experts when it is not possible or not practical to interact with the arguments. I think this is a perfectly reasonable appeal to authority. However, two things: first, we certainly do not have a consensus among philosophers, and second, we have plenty of available arguments and evidence on both sides! All that remains is for the person to evaluate the evidence. Now suppose someone isn't really intellectually equipped to handle any of the basic arguments for or against God. What to do? No fear. If Plantinga or Alston's respective epistemological projects succeed, these people can experience God immediately and in a properly basic way, and be at least "defensively justified" in it, even if they don't know why or how. But anyway, I strayed way off topic here. :)

If philosophers have expertise in any field that field would be the field of logical, rational evaluation of argument. That professional philosophers by about a 5 to 1 ratio reject the arguments of theism should concern every non-philosopher who accepts those same arguments just as it should concern someone who believes his heart is perfectly healthy who is told by 5 out of the 6 world-class cardiologists that he has a serious heart condition.

Hello, thanks for the comment! But there are still a few major issues. First, the unfortunate truth is that nearly no one, myself included, discusses these issues dispassionately. And philosophers are known to be quite stubborn when they are not dispassionate. There's a very compelling psychological/emotional reason to reject God. Second, and perhaps most importantly, it doesn't deal with *any* of the arguments. It's just intellectual hand-waving. At some point, nearly every idea is in the minority. Third, your analogy is disanalogous, but I am glad you brought it up. If we were to look at your medical analogy, it should say, "one should be concerned who believes his heart is perfectly healthy who is told by 5 out of 6 of the physicians he meets that he has a serious heart condition." But what if we simply said that one of those physicians was a chiropractor, another a pediatrician, another a podiatrist, another a pulmonary specialist, and the final two were cardiologists? And what if we said that instead of being world-class, they were all, roughly, average (or at least, their skill averaged out as such for their profession)? What then? It seems far less certain; at the very least, one should consult mostly, or exclusively, cardiologists. But it gets worse for the philosophical profession; philosophy touches all disciplines. This means that while those in the medical profession can be somewhat connected in matters of the body, there are some philosophical disciplines that are far less connected to philosophy of religion. In order for your analogy to work, you must content that a similar or strong ratio exists among philosophers of religion, and from what I've heard, that's just not the case. Finally, it ignores the idea that the layman can be internally justified in belief in God.